get_all_etfs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('get all ETFs') but does not disclose additional traits like data freshness, pagination, whether it includes delisted ETFs, or any rate limits. The description is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words. Efficient and directly communicates the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It names the exchange (NSE) and content (prices, NAV), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. This is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves all ETFs listed on NSE with prices and NAV, providing examples (Gold, Debt, Equity ETFs). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all ETFs'), distinctly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'get_etf_quote' or 'get_etf_history'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While no explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' is stated, the description and name make it clear this is for a broad overview of all ETFs. Given the context of many sibling tools, a user can infer that this tool is appropriate when a comprehensive list is needed, not specific details. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.